<p>
[quote]
Former Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin was beaten by medieval prince Alexander Nevsky in a poll held by a TV station to find the greatest Russian. Stalin came third, despite being responsible for the deaths of millions of Soviets in labour camps and purges. Stalin - born an ethnic Georgian - was riding high for many months and was in the number one slot at one point until the show's producer appealed to viewers to vote for someone else, says the BBC's Richard Galpin in Moscow.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think it's interesting how our history textbooks always implied that many people hated and still hate Stalin. Yet, this challenges our view that a dictator can't be like by his people. Also, does the popular support for dictators legitimize their rule? In Latin America, many populist leaders are supported by the poor, giving them near dictator status (Huge Chavez). </p>
<p>I suppose it's a difference in opinion. I guess most Americans would never vote for a dictator as the "greatest" American, simply for the fact that he's a dictator. Whereas, it seems that Russians, especially with their acceptance of Putin's "democracy", they seem to value economic growth and stability over democracy.</p>
<p>Being the "greatest" doesn't necessarily mean being the "nicest".</p>
<p>Also, keep in mind that most Russians have a pretty pessimistic mentality when it comes to the future, and they are constantly looking to the past in a somewhat nostalgic nature. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, many Russians regretted their current position and craved the former respect they may have once had.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Being the "greatest" doesn't necessarily mean being the "nicest".
[/quote]
+1</p>
<p>Like I think Hitler could be the greatest German ever, not that I like him. I consider him one of the vilest and most evil people to ever live. He was great.</p>
<p>Reminds me of a quote by Ollivander concerning Voldemort: "He did great things, terrible yes, but great"</p>
<p>
[quote]
I suppose it's a difference in opinion. I guess most Americans would never vote for a dictator as the "greatest" American, simply for the fact that he's a dictator. Whereas, it seems that Russians, especially with their acceptance of Putin's "democracy", they seem to value economic growth and stability over democracy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am interested to see your list of American dictators that we can vote on.</p>
<p>Many Russians still look back on the Soviet Union as their time of greatness. They were the world power equal to the USA... this is no longer the case. And, I suppose the argument could be made that Stalin put the Soviet Union on the road to world power.</p>
<p>Obviously the people who would be voting for him focus on the above, and not on how many people were killed as a result...</p>
<p>^
Soccerguy: I wasn't implying that America had a dictator. But if we were to have a dictator, regardless of how great of a job he did we would probably never vote him great since he was not put in place based on democracy.</p>
<p>It wasn't that he was a dictator, like what soccerguy said, it was that his reign coincided with (or resulted in) a golden Soviet age. Any man who makes his country great will be considered a hero by that country, regardless if his motivations or judgments were skewed. I think it is because we have been great for so long, but if we sunk into mediocrity and then someone assumed power and made America great again, we'd think he was great too.</p>
<p>I don't think you can call the time of Stalin's reign as the Soviet Golden Age... Pax Sovietica came after. Life under Stalin was s.h.i.t. for most, but since people were used to it, and they were told it's OK, some of them enjoyed that sort of life.</p>
<p>quirky - I generally agree with that. I'm not sure what time period you are referring to with the term "Pax Sovietica", but I agree that life for the individuals under Stalin was not very good. But, life for the country, on the world stage, was. Stalin helped defeat Nazi Germany (after Germany backstabbed them) and went on to dominate the next 45 years of international politics. So if you look at just the Soviet Union, they were a world power. But if you look at the micro level, there were people starving and political killings galore.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Soccerguy: I wasn't implying that America had a dictator. But if we were to have a dictator, regardless of how great of a job he did we would probably never vote him great since he was not put in place based on democracy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>ah, I understand. Here in the US we have a long standing tradition of holding elections and peaceful transfer of power every four years, something which is almost always taken for granted. In many other countries, this is not the case. If you lived in a country where power always changed hands by force, that is probably how you would assume it is always done.</p>
<p>First I just want to ask, how are Pushkin and Peter the Great lower on the list than Stalin. As a Russian myself (born and partially raised) I really don't even think that Stolypin should be second, but I'm not going to go into that. In any case, every Russian knows how and what Stalin did. No matter how romanticized a view of Soviet Russia we see on our TV screens, I am still at a loss as to how this could be true. I understand the reasons above and obviously think that they are most likely correct, but still, how can people value a few good years in a bipolar system over all the wonderful and meaningful things that a lot of the others have done. </p>
<p>I'm sort of disgusted right now. No matter how bad the future outlook looks I don't think constantly looking backwards is the right way to go at all.</p>
<p>Damn, I'm so used to all the interesting threads being posted in Parents Cafe. Nice to see one posted here for a change!</p>
<p>That said, I'm not remarkably surprised. Historically-significant figures are often a great source of nationalistic pride for people, whether they'd like to admit it or not. Let's face it, most people crave attention, and when you've got a figure like Stalin in your nation's historical repertoire, it's a source of nationalistic excitement.</p>
<p>As far as Stalin and his ilk are concerned, in my opinion, Lenin > Stalin, by miles.</p>
<p>
[quote]
First I just want to ask, how are Pushkin and Peter the Great lower on the list than Stalin. As a Russian myself (born and partially raised) I really don't even think that Stolypin should be second, but I'm not going to go into that. In any case, every Russian knows how and what Stalin did. No matter how romanticized a view of Soviet Russia we see on our TV screens, I am still at a loss as to how this could be true. I understand the reasons above and obviously think that they are most likely correct, but still, how can people value a few good years in a bipolar system over all the wonderful and meaningful things that a lot of the others have done.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am also Russian, and immigrated to the States in the 90s before the fall of the Soviet Union. While I cannot truly explain the mindset behind the vote, perhaps your confusion stems from the fact that you're a different kind of Russian...I'm assuming that you emigrated from Russia and now live in America. Those who emigrate are more likely to be aware of Russia's faults, in my opinion. From the Russian-Americans I have spoken to, they are more likely to speak of the brainwashing and sketchy dealings of the USSR, while I'm certain that main-land Russians will not. Perhaps the voters were only thinking of the results of Stalin's actions, not necessarily about how he achieved them.</p>
<p>Stalin is a bastard but I believe this shows the anger of the Russian people towards their current economic status. Rampant poverty and unemployment has lead to a large group of people being very angry towards the system. Many people want to go back to pre-capitalist Soviet Union.</p>
<p>Stalin won the war for the Allies. I mean, it's slightly more complicated, but without his help, World War Two would have been a very different battle. It's hard to understate the importance of the defeat of the Nazis.</p>
<p>Of course, the slicing up of Europe and the ensuing bipolar Cold War was devastating for the world, but, you know. The act of winning the war itself was nice.</p>